Linker error with internal procedure definitions

[MDK]

[plain]!===== file: testa_mod.f90 =====!

module testa

contains

    function testa_func
        integer :: testa_func
    contains
        subroutine internal_sub
            testa_func = 2
        end subroutine
    end function

end module


!===== file: testb_mod.f90 =====!

module testb

contains

    function testb_func
        integer :: testb_func
    contains
        subroutine internal_sub
            testb_func = 2
        end subroutine
    end function

end module


!===== file: testc_mod.f90 =====!

module testc

contains

    function testc_func
        integer :: testc_func
    contains
        subroutine internal_sub
            testc_func = 2
        end subroutine
    end function

end module


!===== file: main.f90 =====!

program main

    use testa
    use testb
    use testc
    
end program

 [/plain]

I'm getting a linker error for multiple definitions (LNK1169), and I'm not sure if it's my fault or the compiler/linker. I haven't been able to pare my code down to a reproducible example, but the sample above shows the gist of what I'm doing. I have multiple modules in separate files. Each module has a function that happens to have an internal procedure of the same name. It's my understanding that internal procedures only have local scope, so I don't think this should be a problem. The linker disagrees:

error LNK2005: INTERNAL_SUB$BLK..T403_ already defined in testa_mod.obj file:testb_mod.obj
fatal error LNK1169: one or more multiply defined symbols found file: main.exe

If I remove 'testa' from the compilation there is no error, even though 'testb' and 'testc' also have internal procedures with the same name. The fix for this problem is trivial, so I'm just wondering if I'm in the wrong.

[Steven_L_Intel1]

Which exact compiler version are you using? This sounds like a problem we fixed some time ago. I can't reproduce it in 11.1.054.

[MDK]

Quoting - Steve Lionel (Intel)

Which exact compiler version are you using? This sounds like a problem we fixed some time ago. I can't reproduce it in 11.1.054.

This is with 11.1.054. The code I posted does not reproduce the problem. I haven't been able to pare down my actual code to a simple test case, and I wasn't entirely sure what I was doing was allowed in the first place. Now that I kow it might be a bug I'll try to reproduce it.